Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/22/17 Page 1 of 25
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Jonathan S. Kagan (SBN 166039)
`jkagan@irell.com
`Joshua Glucoft (SBN 301249)
`jglucoft@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`
`Rebecca Carson (SBN 254105)
`rcarson@irell.com
`Nima Hefazi (SBN 272816)
`nhefazi@irell.com
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, California 92660-6324
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Facsimile: (949) 760-5200
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10402320
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.’S NOTICE
`OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`UNDER RULE 12(b)(6); MEMORANDUM
`OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Judge:
`Courtroom:
`
`February 1, 2018
`8:00 a.m.
`William Alsup
`12 – 19th Floor
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/22/17 Page 2 of 25
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 1, 2018, at 8:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`
`the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, of the San Francisco Courthouse, 450
`
`Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, before the Honorable William Alsup,
`
`Defendant Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) will and hereby does move for an order dismissing
`
`with prejudice the claims of willful infringement and indirect infringement in the complaint filed
`
`by Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) on September 29, 2017 (the “Complaint”). This motion is
`
`based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of
`
`Rebecca L. Carson, all documents in the Court’s file, and such other written or oral argument as
`
`may be presented at or before the time this motion is heard by the Court.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Juniper seeks an order dismissing Finjan’s willful infringement and indirect infringement
`
`claims pursuant to Rules 8 and 16(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state
`
`a claim.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`Whether the Complaint fails to state claims for willful infringement with respect to U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,647,633, 7,613,926, 8,141,154, 6,677,494, 7,975,305, and
`
`8,225,408 because Finjan has not set forth adequate factual allegations to establish that Juniper
`
`(1) had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents, or (2) engaged in “egregious” conduct that
`
`would warrant enhanced damages.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10402320
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/22/17 Page 3 of 25
`
`Whether the Complaint fails to state a claim for indirect infringement with respect to U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,647,633, 7,613,926, 6,677,494, 7,975,305, and 8,225,408
`
`because Finjan has not set forth adequate factual allegations to establish that Juniper had
`
`(1) knowledge of the asserted patents and alleged infringement, or (2) specific intent to induce a
`
`third party to infringe the asserted patents.
`
`Dated: December 22, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`
`By: /s/ Rebecca Carson
`Rebecca Carson
`Attorneys for Defendant
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10402320
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/22/17 Page 4 of 25
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 5
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`Finjan Fails To Adequately Plead Willful Infringement. ........................................ 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Finjan Has Not Adequately Plead Pre-Suit Knowledge. ............................. 7
`
`Finjan Also Fails To Adequately Allege “Egregious
`Conduct.” ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`Finjan Also Fails To Adequately Plead Indirect Infringement. ............................ 12
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 18
`
`I.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10402320
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/22/17 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Hilton Resorts Corp.,
`2013 WL 12071642 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2013) ...........................................................................16
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`258 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .....................................................................................12
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...............................................................................................................6, 14
`
`Avocet Sports Tech., Inc. v. Garmin Intern., Inc.,
`2012 WL 2343163 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2012) .......................................................................12, 15
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................5, 6
`
`CAP Co., Ltd. v. McAfee, Inc.,
`2015 WL 3945875 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2015) ...........................................................................13
`
`Cascades Computer Innovation, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`77 F.Supp.3d 756 (N.D. Ill. 2015) .........................................................................................8, 13
`
`CG Tech. Dev., LLC v. Big Fish Games, Inc.,
`2016 WL 4521682 (D. Nev. Aug. 29, 2016) ..............................................................................11
`
`CG Tech. Dev., LLC v. FanDuel, Inc.,
`2017 WL 58572 (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2017) .....................................................................................11
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015) ...............................................................................................................12
`
`Conley v. Gibson,
`355 U.S. 41 (1957) .......................................................................................................................5
`
`Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`2017 WL 2651709 (D. Ariz. June 19, 2017) ..............................................................................11
`
`Dorman Products, Inc. v. Paccar, Inc.,
`201 F.Supp.3d 663 (E.D. Penn. 2016) .......................................................................................11
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd.,
`471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................................................12
`
`Emazing Lights, LLC v. De Oca,
`2016 WL 7507765 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) ............................................................................11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10402320
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/22/17 Page 6 of 25
`
`Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Page
`2016 WL 1019667 (D. Del. March 15, 2016) ........................................................................8, 13
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.,
`2017 WL 2462423 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2017) ..................................................................... passim
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
`563 U.S. 754 (2011) ...................................................................................................................17
`
`Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corporation,
`2016 WL 7217625 (D. Del. Dec. 13, 2016) ...............................................................................11
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) .............................................................................................................6, 9
`
`Longitude Licensing v. Apple Inc.,
`2015 WL 1143071 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2015) .........................................................................7, 8
`
`Novitaz, Inc. v. inMarket Media, LLC,
`2017 WL 2311407 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2017) .............................................................................6
`
`Radware Ltd. v. A10 Networks, Inc.,
`2013 WL 5373305 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2013) ...........................................................................16
`
`Radware Ltd. v. A10 Networks, Inc.,
`Case No. 5:13-cv-02021-RMW, Dkt. No. 28 ............................................................................16
`
`Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc.,
`2016 WL 4427490 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) .............................................................................7
`
`Star Envirotech, Inc. v. Redline Detection, LLC,
`2014 WL 12589111 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014) ..........................................................................15
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`2016 WL 8729942 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2016) ......................................................................13, 16
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`Case 3:16-cv-03582-WHA, Dkt. No. 34 ....................................................................................16
`
`TCL Communications Technology Holdings Ltd v. Telefonaktenbologet
`LM Ericsson,
`2014 WL 12588293 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2014) .........................................................................17
`
`U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Netgear, Inc.,
`2013 WL 4112601 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013) ...........................................................................16
`
`Unisone Strategic IP, Inc. v. Life Techs. Corp.,
`2013 WL 5729487 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013) .............................................................................15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10402320
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/22/17 Page 7 of 25
`
`Unisone Strategic IP, Inc. v. Tracelink, Inc.,
`Page
`2013 WL 12077477 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013) ..........................................................................13
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`2017 WL 1175379 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) ........................................................................8, 13
`
`Varion Med. Sys., Inc. v. Elekta AB,
`2016 WL 3748772 (D. Del. July 12, 2016) ................................................................................11
`
`Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. TIBCO Software Inc.,
`2012 WL 1831543 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2012) .......................................................................8, 12
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................................7
`
`XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`2017 WL 4551519 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) ............................................................................10
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ..................................................................................................................................6
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) .............................................................................................................................5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ........................................................................................................................5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ................................................................................................................6, 11
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10402320
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/22/17 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Finjan’s willfulness and indirect infringement claims fail to meet the pleading
`
`requirements and must be dismissed. The Complaint purports to assert claims for willful
`
`infringement for all eight Patents-in-Suit, as well as claims for induced infringement of seven of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit. But the allegations are lacking in numerous respects.
`
`As an initial matter, a prerequisite to any claim for willfulness is establishing that the
`
`defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patent and the alleged infringement. Here, the
`
`Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations showing that Juniper had pre-suit knowledge of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit, much less that Juniper knew its products infringed the Patents-in-Suit. To try to
`
`distract from this failure, Finjan focuses on Juniper’s purported knowledge of a non-asserted
`
`Finjan patent and Finjan’s “patent portfolio” generally. It is well-settled in this District, however,
`
`that knowledge of a patent portfolio or other, similar patents is not sufficient to sustain a claim of
`
`willfulness. See, e.g., Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., 2017 WL 2462423, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
`
`June 7, 2017) (“Knowledge of a patent portfolio generally is not the same thing as knowledge of a
`
`specific patent.”). Finjan’s willfulness claims also fail because it has not plead sufficient facts for
`
`this Court to make a plausible inference that Juniper’s actions were “egregious.” The Complaint
`
`does not set forth any allegation that Juniper had a subjective belief that it was infringing the
`
`Patents-in-Suit. Nor are there any facts in the Complaint to suggest that Juniper’s alleged conduct
`
`is anything more than a “typical” case of infringement. Because Finjan has not—and indeed,
`
`cannot—assert that Juniper had pre-suit knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit or that Juniper’s conduct
`
`was “egregious,” Finjan’s claims for willfulness should be dismissed.
`
`Finjan’s failure to adequately plead that Juniper had pre-suit knowledge of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit and the alleged infringement is also fatal to its indirect infringement claims. As with
`
`willfulness, general knowledge of a patent portfolio or of other, similar patents is simply not
`
`sufficient to support a claim for inducement. Finjan does not allege that it provided Juniper with
`
`pre-suit notice of the specific Patents-in-Suit. Nor does Finjan explicitly allege that Juniper was
`
`put on notice of the Patents-in-Suit when it filed its Complaint or attempt to set forth a theory of
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10402320
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/22/17 Page 9 of 25
`
`indirect infringement based on Juniper’s post-Complaint conduct. As such, Finjan’s indirect
`
`infringement claims are insufficient. Even if Finjan had adequately plead the requisite knowledge
`
`elements, however, its indirect infringement claims should still be dismissed because the
`
`Complaint fails to adequately allege that Juniper had “specific intent” to induce a third party to
`
`infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Finjan filed a Complaint against Juniper on September 29, 2017, alleging that Juniper
`
`directly infringed eight patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 (“’844 Patent”), 6,804,780 (“’780
`
`patent”), 7,647,633 (“’633 patent”), 7,613,926 (“’926 patent”), 8,141,154 (“‘’154 patent”),
`
`6,677,494 (“’494 patent”), 7,975,305 (“’305 patent”), and 8,225,408 (“’408 patent”) (collectively,
`the “Patents-in-Suit”).1
`For each of these patents, Finjan also alleges that Juniper’s infringement was willful. Dkt.
`
`No. 1 (Complaint) at ¶¶ 70, 86, 105, 123, 140, 155, 175, and 192. Finjan’s willful infringement
`
`allegations are identical for each of the Patents-in-Suit, and are as follows:
`
`68.
`
`Defendant has been
`
`long-aware of Finjan’s patents,
`
`including the [] Patent, and continued its infringing activity despite
`
`this knowledge. On or about June 10, 2014, Finjan informed
`
`Defendant of its patent portfolio, including the Asserted patents and
`
`Defendant’s infringement thereof. On or about July 2, 2014, Finjan
`
`provided a representative claim chart mapping one of Finjan’s
`
`patents to Defendant’s accused products and services. Finjan
`
`diligently, but unsuccessfully, attempted to engage in good faith
`
`negotiations with Defendant regarding Finjan’s patent portfolio,
`
`
`1 The ’844, ’494, ’926, and ’633 patents expired before Finjan filed its Complaint. See
`Declaration of Rebecca Carson ¶ 4. The ’844 patent and ’494 patent claim priority to U.S. Patent
`No. 6,156,520 (’520 patent), which was filed on January 29, 1997 and expired on January 29,
`2017. Id. Thus, the ’844 and ’494 patent expired on January 29, 2017. Id. The ’926 patent is
`subject to a terminal disclaimer against the ’844 patent so the ’926 expired on January 29, 2017 as
`well. Id. Finally, the ’633 patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer against U.S. Patent
`No. 7,058,822 (’822 patent), which claims priority to the ’520 patent. Since the ’520 patent
`expired on January 29, 2017, the ’822 patent is expired, as is the ’633 patent. Id.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`10402320
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/22/17 Page 10 of 25
`
`explaining Defendant’s
`
`infringement of each claim of a
`
`representative patent, element-by-element.
`
`69.
`
`Even after being shown that its products infringe Finjan’s
`
`patents, on information and belief Defendant has made no effort to
`
`design its products or services around Finjan’s patents, in order to
`
`avoid infringement. Instead, on information and belief Defendant
`
`incorporated infringing technology into additional products, such as
`
`those identified in this complaint. Defendant was dismissive of
`
`Finjan’s attempts, over several years, to engage in licensing discussions
`
`and expressed more interest in Finjan’s status as a practicing entity than
`
`in Finjan’s analysis of how Defendant’s products read on Finjan’s
`
`patents. For years Defendant refused to seriously consider Finjan’s
`
`patent portfolio under a non-disclosure agreement. All of these actions
`
`demonstrate Defendant’s blatant and egregious disregard for Finjan’s
`
`patent rights.
`
`70.
`
`Despite its knowledge of Finjan’s patent portfolio and Asserted
`
`Patents, being provided a representative claim chart of Finjan patents,
`
`and engaging
`
`in multiple meetings regarding
`
`infringement of
`
`Defendant’s products and services, Defendant has sold and continues to
`
`sell the accused products and services in complete and reckless
`
`disregard of Finjan’s patent rights. As such, Defendant has acted
`
`recklessly and continues to willfully, wantonly, and deliberately engage
`
`in acts of infringement of the [] Patent, justifying an award to Finjan of
`
`increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and attorneys’ fees and costs
`
`incurred under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`Dkt. No. 1 (Complaint) ¶¶ 68-70, 84-86, 103-105, 121-123, 138-140, 153-155, 173-175, 190-192
`
`(containing identical language).
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10402320
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/22/17 Page 11 of 25
`
`Another part of the Complaint—entitled “Finjan’s Notice of Infringement to Defendant”
`
`makes clear that the “representative claim chart” that Finjan provided to Juniper in 2014 was for
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968 (the “’968 Patent”), which is not one of the Patents-in-Suit. Id. at
`
`¶¶ 34-35. Finjan further alleges that, in response to its ’968 patent claim chart, Juniper “sent a
`
`letter to Finjan listing ten patents that [Juniper] believed would be considered ‘prior art’ to the
`’968 Patent.” Id. at ¶ 37. Moreover, the Complaint acknowledges that Finjan chose not to provide
`
`Juniper with any claim charts for other patents because Juniper declined Finjan’s request to enter
`
`into a non-disclosure agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 35-36.
`
`In addition to allegations of direct and willful infringement, the Complaint also alleges that
`
`Juniper induced others to infringe each of the Patent-in-Suit, other than the ’154 patent. Finjan
`
`bases its claims for induced infringement on the same boiler-plate allegations for each of the
`
`patents, save for the patent and claim numbers:
`
`73.
`
`In addition to directly infringing the [] Patent, Defendant
`
`indirectly infringes the [] Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by
`
`instructing, directing, and/or
`
`requiring others,
`
`including
`
`its
`
`customers, purchasers, users, and developers, to perform one or
`
`more of the steps of the method claims, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, of the [] Patent, where all the steps of the
`
`method claims are performed by either Defendant, its customers,
`
`purchasers, users or developers, or some combination thereof.
`
`Defendant knew or was willfully blind to the fact that it was
`
`inducing others,
`
`including customers, purchasers, users or
`
`developers, to infringe by practicing, either themselves or in
`
`conjunction with Defendant, one or more method claims of the []
`
`Patent, including at least Claims [].
`
`
`
`74.
`
`Defendant knowingly and actively aided and abetted the
`
`direct infringement of the [] Patent by instructing and encouraging
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10402320
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/22/17 Page 12 of 25
`
`its customers, purchasers, users and developers to use the [] Accused
`
`Products. Such instruction and encouragement includes, but is not
`
`limited to, advising third parties to use the [] Accused Products in an
`
`infringing manner, providing a mechanism through which third
`
`parties may infringe the [] Patent, advertising and promoting the use
`
`of the [] Accused Products in an infringing manner, and distributing
`
`guidelines and instructions to third parties on how to use the []
`
`Accused Products in an infringing manner.
`
`
`
`75.
`
`Defendant updates and maintains an HTTP site called the
`
`“Technical Assistance Center” with Defendant’s installation guides,
`
`troubleshooting guides, user guides, and operating instructions for
`
`Defendant’s accused products. See, e.g.,
`
`http://www.juniper.net/documentation/;
`
`https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-
`
`independent/junos/topics/concept/servicesgateway-srx240-jtac.html,
`attached hereto as Exhibits 21, 22.2
`Dkt. No. 1 (Complaint) ¶¶ 73-75, 89-91, 108-110, 126-128, 158-160, 178-180, 195-197.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must plead facts sufficient to “show[] that the pleader is
`
`entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The purpose of this rule is to ensure that the plaintiff
`
`“give[s] the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
`
`Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of
`
`his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’“ under Rule 8(a) “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
`
`formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
`
`
`2 Exhibits 21 and 22 are nothing more than the directory page to Juniper’s online product
`resources, and an information page that provides contact information for Juniper’s customer
`support. Carson Decl. Exs. A and B.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10402320
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/22/17 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Accordingly, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
`
`must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
`
`on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
`
`Facial plausibility exists only if “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
`
`the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Dismissal
`
`under Rule 12(b)(6) is thus appropriate if the factual allegations do not “raise a right to relief
`
`above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56.
`When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, only well-pleaded facts alleged in the
`
`complaint are to be considered. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
`
`supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,” because “the tenet that a court must
`
`accept as true all of the allegations in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556
`U.S. at 678. Further, “only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to
`
`dismiss. . . . [W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
`
`possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader
`
`is entitled to relief.’” Id. at 679 (emphasis added).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`Finjan Fails To Adequately Plead Willful Infringement.
`A.
`Finjan’s claims for willful infringement are inadequate and the Court should therefore
`
`dismiss them. “Section 284 gives district courts the discretion to award enhanced damages against
`
`those guilty of patent infringement.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1935
`
`(2016). In applying this discretion, however, district courts are to limit “the award of enhanced
`damages to egregious cases of misconduct beyond typical infringement.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`The “sort of conduct warranting enhanced damages [under 35 U.S.C. § 284] has been variously
`
`described . . . as willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant,
`
`or—indeed—characteristic of a pirate.” Id. at 1932.
`
`Willfulness is “a separate claim that can be subject to a motion to dismiss.” Novitaz, Inc.
`
`v. inMarket Media, LLC, 2017 WL 2311407, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2017). As such, any
`
`willfulness allegations must meet the factual and plausibility pleading requirements, just as any
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10402320
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/22/17 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`other claim. To state a claim for willful infringement, the complaint must plead sufficient facts to
`
`show the alleged infringer: (1) had adequate knowledge of the asserted patents and infringement,
`
`and (2) engaged in egregious conduct that would warrant enhanced damages. See Finjan, Inc. v.
`
`Cisco Systems Inc., 2017 WL 2462423, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2017). Here, Finjan has not
`
`adequately alleged either of these elements, and its willfulness claims should thus be dismissed.
`1.
`“Claims of willful patent infringement require an allegation that the defendant had
`
`Finjan Has Not Adequately Plead Pre-Suit Knowledge.
`
`knowledge of the asserted patents and its alleged infringement of those patents before the lawsuit
`
`was filed.” Longitude Licensing v. Apple Inc., 2015 WL 1143071, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13,
`
`2015); see also WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Knowledge of
`
`the patent alleged to be willfully infringed continues to be a prerequisite to enhanced damages.”);
`
`Finjan, Inc., 2017 WL 2462423, at *5 (dismissing willfulness claim where Complaint did “not
`
`contain factual allegations that would enable the Court to plausibly conclude that Cisco had pre-
`
`suit knowledge”); Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc., 2016 WL 4427490, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
`
`22, 2016) (no willfulness where there was inadequate evidence of pre-suit knowledge).
`
`Here, the Complaint does not adequately allege that Juniper had pre-suit knowledge of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit, much less any knowledge that it was infringing those patents. Tellingly, while the
`
`Complaint contains a section entitled “Finjan’s Notice of Infringement,” it is devoid of any
`
`mention of the Patents-in-Suit. See Dkt. No.1 (Complaint) ¶¶ 34-42. Instead, Finjan merely
`
`alleges that it notified Juniper of a patent that is not even asserted against Juniper in this case—the
`’968 patent—as well as Finjan’s “patents” and “patent portfolio” generally. Id. In fact, the only
`
`mention in the Complaint of Juniper’s purported knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit—as opposed to
`
`Juniper’s knowledge of Finjan’s patents generally or the non-asserted ’968 patent—is an
`
`ambiguous statement in each Count that “[o]n or about June 10, 2014, Finjan informed Defendant
`
`of its patent portfolio, including the Asserted patents and Defendant’s infringement thereof.” See
`
`Dkt. No. 1 (Complaint) ¶¶ 68, 84, 103, 121, 138, 153, 173, and 190 (containing identical
`
`language). Finjan’s own description of that June 10, 2014 communication, however, makes clear
`that Finjan chose not to provide Juniper with information about any specific patents oth